Share

EPA Eases Emissions Regulations for New Power Plants

by: David A. Fahrenthold and Steven Mufson  |  The Washington Post

photo
In a move that goes against arguments from environmental groups, the EPA ruled yesterday that new power plants are not required to install technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. (Photo: Dan O'Brien Productions, Inc.)

    The Environmental Protection Agency ruled yesterday that new power plants are not required to install technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, rejecting an argument from environmental groups.

    The ruling, in a memorandum signed by EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, turns on a seemingly arcane regulatory question that could govern the future of new fossil fuel-burning buildings and power plants under the Clean Air Act.

    During the Bush administration, the EPA has rejected the idea that greenhouse gases should be regulated like soot, smog precursors and other kinds of air pollution, despite an April 2007 Supreme Court ruling that said carbon dioxide fit the definition of a pollutant that could be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

    The case at issue yesterday began in 2007 when the EPA issued a permit to a new coal-fired power plant in Bonanza, Utah. The Sierra Club, an environmental group, filed a legal challenge, saying that the permit should have required the plant to control its output of carbon dioxide.

    In a case before the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board, the Sierra Club cited a rule that required plants to use the best available technology to control all "regulated" pollutants, as well as the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling.

    The case revolved around the question of whether carbon dioxide was required to be controlled or simply monitored.

    The appeals board, a kind of appeals court for EPA rules, found on Nov. 13 that the rule was unclear. Johnson's memo yesterday sought to make it plain. Major industrial corporations have been pressing the Bush administration to issue a ruling in the case.

    "That is our established interpretation," Robert Meyers, the head of the EPA office of air and radiation, said in an interview. "We've been applying it that way for 30 years."

    It was unclear yesterday what the ruling's real-world impact will be. The EPA says that about 50 plants - either new or significantly remodeled - must obtain a permit under this provision every year. But Meyers said he does not know if any are positioned to receive final approval before President-elect Barack Obama takes office on Jan. 20.

    The Obama administration is likely to review the case, and Democratic officials close to the president-elect's team say that the Supreme Court ruling and the EPA's power to regulate carbon dioxide can serve as powerful levers to bring corporations and other parties to a bargaining table about broad framework for controlling greenhouse gases.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

How can we ever get any

How can we ever get any other country to admit to the problem if the US doesn't take a responsible lead? China can now take the ball and run with it. They are building a new coal powered generator every two weeks! Their CO2 emissions will just drift over and kill us. Amazing how stupid Bush is in recognizing the obvious. Obama's legacy will have to be the reversal of the reversal!

Enough of these midnight

Enough of these midnight regulations. The era of ignorance and denial is upon us. The US has reached a fork in the road. On one side, I see integrity, honesty, and a government that will put the value of the public first. On the other, I see lies, denial, and the idea of "market first" at any cost. I see the later taking place right now. Never mind the horrific impacts of global warming or the health effects that this will mean; whatever happened to any standards of accountability? Yes, Obama will have to spend much of his time reversing the colossal damages caused by Bush, but now one must ask: will he? The public must demand that he does today and now.

Another example of how the

Another example of how the Bush Administration is hazardous to your health. They are pushing the tipping point on global warming and endangering national security. The world will be looking at the US as the main cause of global warming, and would you be surprised if they were revengefully angry?